Update on ABU wear.

[O-Rex]

A lot of folks are of the opinion that Navy Blue is the way to go, I think so too. As posted, works for ABU and BBDU's

Believe it or not, Vanguard is a BIG factor in all this.  Does anyone remember a Nation Board or two ago when a proposal was made for sew-on rank for USAF-style flight suits?  It was NOT any similarity to USAF rank that killed it, but the fact that Vanguard had just found a supplier for plastic-encased rank, and now has ooglobs of them in stock.

Don't forget that changing the color of the branch/nametape means changing all of the sew-on badges too, i.e., wings, GT, EMS etc.  Keeping that in mind, if and when the decision is made on ANY other color than UM, coordination will have to be made with VG regarding the liquidation of inventory, which may even include CAP buying-out existing stock.

I don't see any radical changes when CAP is auth'd ABU's, wear of patches will probably not change, and speculate that eventually USAF will start putting patches on their ABU's. If I recall, BDU's were also 'no patch' when USAF first started wearing them in the early '80's. 

One bugaboo is the green boots: $90-120 with no low-cost alternatives out there yet (even our beloved Ebay doesn't sell them cheap.)  That's gonna hit cadets (and their parents) hard, seniors too!

[HPM_CAP]

...Believe it or not, Vanguard is a BIG factor in all this.  Does anyone remember a Nation Board or two ago when a proposal was made for sew-on rank for USAF-style flight suits?  It was NOT any similarity to USAF rank that killed it, but the fact that Vanguard had just found a supplier for plastic-encased rank, and now has ooglobs of them in stock.

Are you sure. If that's true, why did Vanguard "allow" sew-on rank for the new dark blue CAP flightsuit instead of using the huge stock of plastic-encased rank?

[Hawk200]

Don't forget that changing the color of the branch/nametape means changing all of the sew-on badges too, i.e., wings, GT, EMS etc.  Keeping that in mind, if and when the decision is made on ANY other color than UM, coordination will have to be made with VG regarding the liquidation of inventory, which may even include CAP buying-out existing stock.

That buy-out concept bothers me. I don't think the military has ever had to do it when they phase out insignia, it really bothers me that a non-profit organization like ourselves would even have to consider it. The fact that Vanguard's donations to CAP are out of our very purchases is irritating. Then again, there's something familiar about that, isn't there?

I don't see any radical changes when CAP is auth'd ABU's, wear of patches will probably not change, and speculate that eventually USAF will start putting patches on their ABU's.

I agree on CAP wearing patches. I doubt the Air Force will, though. They're a little stuck on what they think everyone else's opinion is.

If I recall, BDU's were also 'no patch' when USAF first started wearing them in the early '80's.

October '88 is when BDU's were worn en-masse by the AF. I was one of the first few flights to be issued them. When it came to patches, it was a matter of everything worn on fatigues was worn on the BDU. Except for the time period when the leather nameplate was worn, patches have been on the BDU as well.

One bugaboo is the green boots: $90-120 with no low-cost alternatives out there yet (even our beloved Ebay doesn't sell them cheap.)  That's gonna hit cadets (and their parents) hard, seniors too!

Very true, and the greens aren't really a superior boot, just different for the sake of being different. I hope they get ditched anyway, they look almost as tacky as the blue suede ones did.

[Hawk200]

...Believe it or not, Vanguard is a BIG factor in all this.  Does anyone remember a Nation Board or two ago when a proposal was made for sew-on rank for USAF-style flight suits?  It was NOT any similarity to USAF rank that killed it, but the fact that Vanguard had just found a supplier for plastic-encased rank, and now has ooglobs of them in stock.

Are you sure. If that's true, why did Vanguard "allow" sew-on rank for the new dark blue CAP flightsuit instead of using the huge stock of plastic-encased rank?

Because, at the time, Vanguard was running out of them and hadn't found a supplier. If they'd had them in stock with no "run out" expected, we probably would have had them on those uniforms too.

Vanguard has far too much say in our uniform configurations, and far too many of their people have told members on this board what they're authorized to wear. I don't recall what they covered, just that most of the time, the Vanguard folks were wrong.

[Smokey]

Vanguard should not even have anyone near the Board when decisions on uniforms are to be made.  Have them on speeddial, then when the Board makes a decision, call them up and say "how long will it take you to supply this?"   and ""what will the cost be?"

[jimmydeanno]

We do quite a bit of R&D where I work.  It is definitely not prudent of us ti design and approve something without first investigating component costs, working closely with our suppliers and manufacturers to come up with the best solution.  To not do so would be irresponsible.

[NIN]

There is a reason the "RealMilitary™" had fantastically long phase-in periods.  Because they want to ensure that

a) The people who have the "old" uniform, even if they bought it the day before the phase in was announced, will get full and complete wear out of the uniform.

b) That they can draw down the existing stocks of uniforms via attrition and purchase. That guy who bought BDUs the day before the ABU phase in was announced may still wind up buying a belt, BDU cap, or maybe even a new pair of boots before the end of the phase in/phase out period, and so you want guys like that to buy up your "old stock."

c) it spreads the cost of "new uniform acquisition" across more than one uniform allowance year for enlisted guys and gals.

[arajca]

Vanguard should not even have anyone near the Board when decisions on uniforms are to be made.  Have them on speeddial, then when the Board makes a decision, call them up and say "how long will it take you to supply this?"   and ""what will the cost be?"

Actually, obtaining that information should be part of staffing the proposal, along with "What's your on hand quantity?" so the NB would already have that information when making the decision.

Wait, I'm assuming there's a process. I'm sorry. Thinking again. Bad habit. Makes my head hurt.

[Hawk200]

We do quite a bit of R&D where I work.  It is definitely not prudent of us ti design and approve something without first investigating component costs, working closely with our suppliers and manufacturers to come up with the best solution.  To not do so would be irresponsible.

I'd say the R&D is already done. Vanguard can make it. They make badges. We know they make badges. We don't need to consult them until after we've decided to make a new badge. Then we call them and tell them what we want.  They're the official supplier, I don't think we'd have a problem.

[O-Rex]

...Believe it or not, Vanguard is a BIG factor in all this.  Does anyone remember a Nation Board or two ago when a proposal was made for sew-on rank for USAF-style flight suits?  It was NOT any similarity to USAF rank that killed it, but the fact that Vanguard had just found a supplier for plastic-encased rank, and now has ooglobs of them in stock.

Are you sure. If that's true, why did Vanguard "allow" sew-on rank for the new dark blue CAP flightsuit instead of using the huge stock of plastic-encased rank?

Because the CAP flightsuit and utility uniform is a corporate uniform: USAF doesn't need to approve.  As for the nix on cloth rank for the green flight suit, the NB notes mention the fact that VG had recently found a distributor and "sufficient" stocks on-hand.

As for the buy-back requirement, a couple of years ago, Florida Wing asked VG not to order any more of the old Wing Patches from the Manufacturer, and had to buy back what little was left in stock before the new wing patch could be made available.

[jimmydeanno]

We do quite a bit of R&D where I work.  It is definitely not prudent of us ti design and approve something without first investigating component costs, working closely with our suppliers and manufacturers to come up with the best solution.  To not do so would be irresponsible.

I'd say the R&D is already done. Vanguard can make it. They make badges. We know they make badges. We don't need to consult them until after we've decided to make a new badge. Then we call them and tell them what we want.  They're the official supplier, I don't think we'd have a problem.

In our case, our process should be...

1) Come up with a concept for the badge/device/whatever.
2) Consult the manufacturer on whether or not it is possible to make the device.
3) Look at the different manufacturing processes offered, get prices for each, determine price/quantity standards.
4) Choose from the available manufacturing processes.
5) Establish a quality standard they must meet if they get the contract, color, materials, etc.
6) Send all information to the NB for approval.
7) National Board Approves
8) Manufacturer creates product immediately.

Now it seems we...

1) NB approves a new badge.
2) Wait a few decades for someone to come up with a design.
3) NB approves design.
4) Someone contacts the manufacturer tells them to make it.
5) Manufacturer charges 3X what it should because we didn't do our part.
6) Quality varies because we don't have a written standard of what the item should be in the first place.

[O-Rex]

We do quite a bit of R&D where I work.  It is definitely not prudent of us ti design and approve something without first investigating component costs, working closely with our suppliers and manufacturers to come up with the best solution.  To not do so would be irresponsible.

I'd say the R&D is already done. Vanguard can make it. They make badges. We know they make badges. We don't need to consult them until after we've decided to make a new badge. Then we call them and tell them what we want.  They're the official supplier, I don't think we'd have a problem.

In our case, our process should be...

1) Come up with a concept for the badge/device/whatever.
2) Consult the manufacturer on whether or not it is possible to make the device.
3) Look at the different manufacturing processes offered, get prices for each, determine price/quantity standards.
4) Choose from the available manufacturing processes.
5) Establish a quality standard they must meet if they get the contract, color, materials, etc.
6) Send all information to the NB for approval.
7) National Board Approves
8) Manufacturer creates product immediately.

Now it seems we...

1) NB approves a new badge.
2) Wait a few decades for someone to come up with a design.
3) NB approves design.
4) Someone contacts the manufacturer tells them to make it.
5) Manufacturer charges 3X what it should because we didn't do our part.
6) Quality varies because we don't have a written standard of what the item should be in the first place.

The difference is that the Military has multiple vendors of clothing and insignia, the biggest ones being Vanguard and Ira Green for whom it is profitable in terms of volume produced and sold.   

Also, the military does not get a kickback from its suppliers. . . . .

[ncc1912]

I think that you will find that with the realignment of CAP-USAF under the Holm Center (Officer Ascensions and Citizen Development) at AU that the trend will be toward CAP having a uniform similar to- but distinct from AFJROTC and AFROTC.  This logically means a USAF (one-star level) desire to make CAP's military-style uniform more... well, uniform.

We will likely see an ABU uniform and the ABU-pattern "CIVIL AIR PATROL"/name strips with dark blue lettering.  Metal rank insignia will likely ensue.

If CAP chooses to push for it, we will likely see dark blue embroidered specialy insignia on ABU-tan.

[Hawk200]

I think that you will find that with the realignment of CAP-USAF under the Holm Center (Officer Ascensions and Citizen Development) at AU that the trend will be toward CAP having a uniform similar to- but distinct from AFJROTC and AFROTC.  This logically means a USAF (one-star level) desire to make CAP's military-style uniform more... well, uniform.

We will likely see an ABU uniform and the ABU-pattern "CIVIL AIR PATROL"/name strips with dark blue lettering.  Metal rank insignia will likely ensue.

If CAP chooses to push for it, we will likely see dark blue embroidered specialy insignia on ABU-tan.

I've got to wonder on what you're analysis is based. Tan is what the AF was going to go to, but chose not to. I don't know if the AF would go for it for CAP.

I doubt metal rank or any other insignia would be considered, it isn't currently permittted on our BDU. The AF mindset rarely even considers pinned on insignia due to the FOD risks. I know it's authorized for the ABU, but it's not very common.

[ncc1912]

I think that you will find that with the realignment of CAP-USAF under the Holm Center (Officer Ascensions and Citizen Development) at AU that the trend will be toward CAP having a uniform similar to- but distinct from AFJROTC and AFROTC.  This logically means a USAF (one-star level) desire to make CAP's military-style uniform more... well, uniform.

We will likely see an ABU uniform and the ABU-pattern "CIVIL AIR PATROL"/name strips with dark blue lettering.  Metal rank insignia will likely ensue.

If CAP chooses to push for it, we will likely see dark blue embroidered specialy insignia on ABU-tan.

I've got to wonder on what you're analysis is based. Tan is what the AF was going to go to, but chose not to. I don't know if the AF would go for it for CAP.

I doubt metal rank or any other insignia would be considered, it isn't currently permittted on our BDU. The AF mindset rarely even considers pinned on insignia due to the FOD risks. I know it's authorized for the ABU, but it's not very common.

As I stated, the metal insignia is what the AFJROTC wears on their ABUs.  Since CAP-USAF now falls under the same administrative umbrella as AFJROTC and AFROTC (Holm Center), it stands to reason that the powers that be would push for similarities in order to better the chances of it being approved by "Big Air Force".  It would be difficult for a one-star to defend why two civilian-based units under her administrative oversight wear such vastly different uniforms.  This means that the likeliest noticeable deviation from the -ROTCs' uniforms would be the rank insignia.

As for the special duty badges: it is also likely that they would mirror what the AF uses if this route were even taken.  Currently, in the AF, we wear AFSC badges embroidered in dark-blue on a single-color fabric (the lightest color found in the ABU pattern).  I don't know the exact name of the shade, but it is similar to a tan color; hence "ABU-tan", as I called it.

[PHall]

I think that you will find that with the realignment of CAP-USAF under the Holm Center (Officer Ascensions and Citizen Development) at AU that the trend will be toward CAP having a uniform similar to- but distinct from AFJROTC and AFROTC.  This logically means a USAF (one-star level) desire to make CAP's military-style uniform more... well, uniform.

We will likely see an ABU uniform and the ABU-pattern "CIVIL AIR PATROL"/name strips with dark blue lettering.  Metal rank insignia will likely ensue.

If CAP chooses to push for it, we will likely see dark blue embroidered specialy insignia on ABU-tan.

I've got to wonder on what you're analysis is based. Tan is what the AF was going to go to, but chose not to. I don't know if the AF would go for it for CAP.

I doubt metal rank or any other insignia would be considered, it isn't currently permittted on our BDU. The AF mindset rarely even considers pinned on insignia due to the FOD risks. I know it's authorized for the ABU, but it's not very common.

As I stated, the metal insignia is what the AFJROTC wears on their ABUs.  Since CAP-USAF now falls under the same administrative umbrella as AFJROTC and AFROTC (Holm Center), it stands to reason that the powers that be would push for similarities in order to better the chances of it being approved by "Big Air Force".  It would be difficult for a one-star to defend why two civilian-based units under her administrative oversight wear such vastly different uniforms.  This means that the likeliest noticeable deviation from the -ROTCs' uniforms would be the rank insignia.

As for the special duty badges: it is also likely that they would mirror what the AF uses if this route were even taken.  Currently, in the AF, we wear AFSC badges embroidered in dark-blue on a single-color fabric (the lightest color found in the ABU pattern).  I don't know the exact name of the shade, but it is similar to a tan color; hence "ABU-tan", as I called it.

Well, there's one BIG difference between CAP and AFJROTC. CAP has adult members, AFJROTC doesn't.
So what works for JROTC may or may not work for CAP.

[afgeo4]

Sir, I think you're pretty much just assuming that the heads would just make us "similar", but the truth is, our uniforms are almost identical to begin with. Our cadets wear insignia that's pretty much exactly the same as AFJROTC's because AFJROTC was based on CAP. The AFROTC insignia is different than our cadets' because our cadets' insignia happens to be VERY similar and in officers' case identical to Army ROTC. Air Force just wanted to be different.

Now... CAP has a long history of our own insignia and there's no real reason to change any of that. We also (unlike the other two) happen to be a separate civilian organization. The other two are part of the actual Air Force (which is why they wear real Air Force uniforms). Do I think ABUs will be authorized? Yes. Logistically and conceptually it makes perfect sense for them to be. Do I think our insignia will change? Nope.

One reason is that NO ONE in the Air Force wants us to look like them. That is... no one wants our senior members to look like Air Force officers, and for the most part I can't blame them. Otherwise... I think they don't care much about our cadets' uniforms as most cadets are clearly children and the ones who aren't, wear easily distinguishable insignia anyway.

What I'd like is ABU with nametapes done in white thread on ABU background.  Badges should stay as they are, but also done in white thread on current ABU background. Rank should be done in full color and on the same background that is currently used on ABU.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sir, I think you're pretty much just assuming that the heads would just make us "similar", but the truth is, our uniforms are almost identical to begin with. Our cadets wear insignia that's pretty much exactly the same as AFJROTC's because AFJROTC was based on CAP. The AFROTC insignia is different than our cadets' because our cadets' insignia happens to be VERY similar and in officers' case identical to Army ROTC. Air Force just wanted to be different.

Now... CAP has a long history of our own insignia and there's no real reason to change any of that. We also (unlike the other two) happen to be a separate civilian organization. The other two are part of the actual Air Force (which is why they wear real Air Force uniforms). Do I think ABUs will be authorized? Yes. Logistically and conceptually it makes perfect sense for them to be. Do I think our insignia will change? Nope.

One reason is that NO ONE in the Air Force wants us to look like them. That is... no one wants our senior members to look like Air Force officers, and for the most part I can't blame them. Otherwise... I think they don't care much about our cadets' uniforms as most cadets are clearly children and the ones who aren't, wear easily distinguishable insignia anyway.

What I'd like is ABU with nametapes done in white thread on ABU background.  Badges should stay as they are, but also done in white thread on current ABU background. Rank should be done in full color and on the same background that is currently used on ABU.

Actually, George, your assumtion that the USAF does not want us to look like them is not entirely accurate.

The AF wants CAP to be identified as a part of the AF, but with distinctive insignia to set CAP officers apart from AF officers, and to have those insignia identifyable from a distance.  Most line AF officers are, frankly, surprised to learn that CAP has its OWN regulations on uniforms.  Most assumed that we fell under AF Instructions in that regard.

On AF bases, I have been politely informed that my flight suit has "Seriously outdated" insignia items by field grade AF officers.  They were shocked to learn that insignia dating back to the Vietnam War was still worn by CAP officers.

I also pointed out that our airplanes still have propellers, too. 

[Eclipse]

We will likely see an ABU uniform and the ABU-pattern "CIVIL AIR PATROL"/name strips with dark blue lettering.  Metal rank insignia will likely ensue.

Not a chance.  For one thing, our regulations require we be distinctive.

One reason is that NO ONE in the Air Force wants us to look like them. That is... no one wants our senior members to look like Air Force officers, and for the most part I can't blame them.

Cite please.

[Major Carrales]

One reason is that NO ONE in the Air Force wants us to look like them. That is... no one wants our senior members to look like Air Force officers, and for the most part I can't blame them.

Cite please.

You will not be offered a citation on that, that is more of the "self-loathing" that I grow a bit tired of and post about from time to time.  Kach's comments are on the money.  CAP uniforms will always be distinctive due to the nature of the organization.

There is also a good chance that CAP uniforms will purposely be put one step behind the USAF uniform, a most logical course of action to take advantage of already existing stockpiles of Military surplus.